Special reloads or Quality factory SD ammo?

[OldMarksman]

I am saying that I have guns which get fed only reloads and I would not hesitate to use one of them for defense based on Bias' conviction.

I agree that Bias' conviction would not drive my hesitation. However, I would not use reloads in a carry gun unless I had to, because of the rules of evidence and because of the (slim) possibility that indications of the shooting distance, in the event that the distance were to become an issue in the defense of justifiability, might have to rely solely on GSR evidence. Bias' conviction is irrelevant, but the inadmissibility of the scientific trace evidence in his trial does serve to enlighten many of us who had not thought through evidentiary considerations that should have been fairly obvious to us even before reading about his case.

In my opinion, his use of reloads was of minor consequence in the grand scheme of choices that resulted in his conviction.

You are entitled to that opinion even if you are not qualified to give it. However, it is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

[OldMarksman]

I have a pending homicide involving a gun with ammo remaining in the cylinder; might be factory loads and might not. It got tested and generated a lab report which will no doubt be admitted.

Just speculating here, but if the purpose is to show that a particular bullet was fired from a particular firearm, an expert witness may be able to make a convincing case for admissibility if the type of bullet, easily verifiable, is the same or very similar, depending upon the characteristics of the gun in question.

Unknown at present if GSR will be an issue in this one.

If GSR is to be used solely to show that the defendant had fired a gun, there shouldn't be an issue. If, on the other hand, the purpose requires the analysis of the burning characteristics of the propellant in a hand-load, you surely have learned enough from the learned discussions above to understand the issue.

Or not.

[Sarge]

Quote:
In my opinion, his use of reloads was of minor consequence in the grand scheme of choices that resulted in his conviction.

You are entitled to that opinion even if you are not qualified to give it.

Well, shucks; sorry my qualifications don't meet your lofty standard.

Just speculating here, but if the purpose is to show that a particular bullet was fired from a particular firearm, an expert witness may be able to make a convincing case for admissibility if the type of bullet, easily verifiable, is the same or very similar, depending upon the characteristics of the gun in question.

What do I need an expert witness for if I've got a lab report that matches the bullet and fired casing to the firearm? The lab's 'toolmark guy' is the expert.

If, on the other hand, the purpose requires the analysis of the burning characteristics of the propellant in a hand-load...

An unnecessary diversion; not needed for any standard lab crime testing of firearms evidence.

you surely have learned enough from the learned discussions above to understand the issue.

LOL. Thank you for that little bit of much-needed levity

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's not wander into snide personal comments again.

Decisions are multicausal in nature, so to look for one particular aspect as driving the entire situation is not useful and simplistic. Any aspect of the situation can add to the net sum that pushes a juror into voting UP or DOWN.

You decide if you want to add or remove a risk factor.

[Tamara]

With 178 posts in this thread, does anybody really think that they're going to change anybody's mind at this point? I'm just curious.

[OldMarksman]

Well, shucks; sorry my qualifications don't meet your lofty standard.

I did not mean that to be critical. My point was simply that neither you nor I, nor the rest of us here, heard the testimony or were present during jury deliberations. Bias' attorneys are qualified to opine and they have given their opinion, recounted to us by Mas Ayoob; of course, there might be some bias involved. Pardon the pun, and please forgive me if you thought that my comment was a snide one.

What do I need an expert witness for if I've got a lab report that matches the bullet and fired casing to the firearm?

In the event that the basis for the report, or the methodology, etc. is questioned by the defense, the expert may need to counter that argument. Tool mark comparison is (still) an accepted method in Missouri, and its admissibility is not likely to be challenged here (though some legal experts say that it is in the cross-hairs for potential challenge in states in which the Daubert standard has been adopred for criminal trials; if it goes to SCOTUS the outcome just might end up affecting everyone). One would have to explain the meaning of the report in trial court and possibly defend it in cross examination--wouldn't you want your expert to testify?

The lab's 'toolmark guy' is the expert.

Yes indeed. The defense may, or course, bring in theirs, also, if they think there is reason to challenge either the admissibility of the evidence or the reliability of the lab's conclusions..

An unnecessary diversion; [analysis of the burning characteristics of the propellant in a hand-load is] not needed for any standard lab crime testing of firearms evidence.

I guess I wandered too far into the range of theory; I was referring to the question of whether such and such a load (propellant amount and composition, with a given bullet weight and barrel length) would or would not have resulted in the presence of gun shot residue on the decedent at such-and such a distance. It's the admissibility of that kind of evidence that we have been discussing.

[Bud Helms]

Yah, Tam, you have a point.

I waited til my lunch time to take a look at this one today. It looks like it has run it's course.

A really good discussion in parts.

Let's close it down while it's still an option.

Bud